IMPORTANT POINT
Cross-objections under Consumer Protection Act, are not maintainable.

Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President—We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the additional evidence produced by the respondent. Before dealing with the merits of this appeal. We would take up the cross-objections filed by the respondent seeking enhancement of the compensation. So far Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Act’ is concerned, there is no such provision for maintaining the cross-objections, nor any provision has been brought to our notice on behalf the respondent. So far applicability of Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is limited under Section 13(4) to 13 (7) of the Act.

2. To be fair to the learned Counsel for the respondent, we may notice his submission. Per him, every court, judicial/quasi judicial authority has inherent power for doing complete justice between the parties to entertain cross-objections. Thus, according to him, cross-objections are maintainable and those need to be disposed of on merits. With a view to advance his this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank, Appellant v. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent.1 This judgment in our opinion, negatives the plea urged by learned Counsel for the respondent. In this case, it has been held that the powers of the Commission under the Act in relation to a letter filed before the Commission alleged to be forged one, such plea could not have been legally ignored and in this background, it was further held that authorities, be they Constitutional, Statutory or Administrative (and particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the power to recall their judgments or orders if they are obtained by fraud, as Fraud and Justice never dwell together. The context in which this judgment has been given, cannot be overlooked. Because fraud vitiates everything. As such, it needs no authority.

3. Again, faced with this situation, Shri Thakur submitted that by withholding annexures supplied by Surveyor with his report, Insurance Company has committed fraud. Prima facie, this argument appears to be quite attractive but when examined in the context of the record of the complaint before the District Forum or even the so called additional evidence produced in this appeal, its hollowness is exposed. We may also mention in this behalf that filing of cross-objections as also right of appeal, review and revision are the creation of statute. In case Legislature intended to create such right in favour of a litigant like respondent in the present case, nothing prevented it to have done so. The omission is not unintentional. In our opinion, it is purposeful with a view to provide expeditious and inexpensive justice to the parties in summary proceedings under the Act without insisting on procedures prescribed under the ordinary law of the land. That being the position, cross-objections are held to be not maintainable and are accordingly rejected.

4. Now coming to the merits of the case. Shri Dharmani, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that chicks had died due to ‘Fowl Cholera’, therefore, his client is not liable for payment of any amount, whatsoever, and compensation awarded in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- with interest and cost awarded by the impugned order needs to be set aside. Shri Dharmani further stated that so far direction to pay Rs. 12,950/- with cost in terms of the Surveyor’s report is concerned, his client does not challenge the same.

5. In order to appreciate the submission of Shri Dharmani, we will refer to the claim form and Veterinary Surgeon’s Certificate on its reverse. In Col. No. 5, the doctor has opined that overall management of the farm was very good. He had given the line of treatment—‘Symptomatic and to control the disease’. Date of death was between 17.10.2002 to 19.10.2002. General conditions of the birds is reported to be good, but emaciated?. In the face of this report to say that the chicks were